Is Crawford - Spence 2 dead in the water?

[dan-b]

Presumably there's insufficient interest to pay each what they'd want to rematch. In which case, what next? I've not heard anything about how the mandatory rotation sits with Crawford. Weren't the IBF supposed to be next? Does Crawford have any interest in having low-key fights like that at this stage of his career and how important is maintaining "undisputed" status to him?

[Smash]

i like the walking dead but i think ive seen enough of this movie, unless spence could get a great win at 154 looking sharp and focused

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I suspect so. It’s a really tough sell based on how dominant Crawford looked.

Crawford fights Jermell or Canelo next IMO.

[ELPacman]

I hate boxing these days where everyone needs a rematch. I can see it warranted if a fight is close, but not if it was a total domination as we saw. If that's the case, isn't any other fight that was won in dominant fashion questionable because a rematch didn't take place? It's kind of ******, but seems to be the common failsafe for promoters these days to give their marquee fighter a second chance to redeem himself by including rematch clauses in all the contracts.

Fury-Usyk already has one written in. This means, if Usyk boxes Fury's brains out and wins 12 rounds to none, knocks Fury down 5 times, we'll still have to be treat to a rematch. In the past, when the better man won, he won and it was over.

Imagine this, Pac-Marquez had 3 close fights. Enough to warrant a 4th. Marquez KO's Pac this time and everything is over. How do we not know that Pac would of KO'd Marquez in fight #5? lol. Or let's pretend Marquez KO'd Pac in their first fight the same way he did in the 4th, we would have never got 3 more fights out of them. You see what I'm saying?

[dan-b]

I hate boxing these days where everyone needs a rematch. I can see it warranted if a fight is close, but not if it was a total domination as we saw. If that's the case, isn't any other fight that was won in dominant fashion questionable because a rematch didn't take place? It's kind of ******, but seems to be the common failsafe for promoters these days to give their marquee fighter a second chance to redeem himself by including rematch clauses in all the contracts.

Fury-Usyk already has one written in. This means, if Usyk boxes Fury's brains out and wins 12 rounds to none, knocks Fury down 5 times, we'll still have to be treat to a rematch. In the past, when the better man won, he won and it was over.

Imagine this, Pac-Marquez had 3 close fights. Enough to warrant a 4th. Marquez KO's Pac this time and everything is over. How do we not know that Pac would of KO'd Marquez in fight #5? lol. Or let's pretend Marquez KO'd Pac in their first fight the same way he did in the 4th, we would have never got 3 more fights out of them. You see what I'm saying?

Having a rematch clause for Fury - Usyk is particularly ****** because it's guaranteed to result in the loss of the IBF title. And yet, isn't being "undisputed" in the "four belt era" all important? I guess only when it can be used in a marketing sense.

[crimsonfalcon07]

I hate boxing these days where everyone needs a rematch. I can see it warranted if a fight is close, but not if it was a total domination as we saw. If that's the case, isn't any other fight that was won in dominant fashion questionable because a rematch didn't take place? It's kind of ******, but seems to be the common failsafe for promoters these days to give their marquee fighter a second chance to redeem himself by including rematch clauses in all the contracts.

Fury-Usyk already has one written in. This means, if Usyk boxes Fury's brains out and wins 12 rounds to none, knocks Fury down 5 times, we'll still have to be treat to a rematch. In the past, when the better man won, he won and it was over.

Imagine this, Pac-Marquez had 3 close fights. Enough to warrant a 4th. Marquez KO's Pac this time and everything is over. How do we not know that Pac would of KO'd Marquez in fight #5? lol. Or let's pretend Marquez KO'd Pac in their first fight the same way he did in the 4th, we would have never got 3 more fights out of them. You see what I'm saying?

There's a lot of famous trilogies, and not all of them had the closest fights.

Patterson v Johannson, Ali v Frazier, Ali-Norton, Duran v De Jesus, Chocolatito v Estrada Carbajal v González, Fullmer v Tiger, Holyfield v Bowe, Griffith v Paret, Ward v Gatti, Zale v Graziano, Barrera v Morales, even Gans v Nelson back at the start of the 1900's all come to mind as famous trilogies. So it's not like rematches didn't happen.

That being said, I think one major difference is the modern propensity for immediate rematches. I think most of us would have fewer issues if fighters fought more and fought their way back into contention, and only did immediate rematches when the result was controversial. That would be way more fan friendly, but also less career friendly in this era in which fighters fear losing their '0'.

[LITTLE JOE]

I suspect so. It’s a really tough sell based on how dominant Crawford looked.

Crawford fights Jermell or Canelo next IMO.

Totally agree. Nobody really wants to see a rematch. If it happens it feels like it would be a financial flop. What promoter would want to invest in that ?

[QballLobo]

I think Showtime getting out of boxing may affect things. The first fight did ok numbers but not amazing considering both guys got paid big guarantees.
Not much interest in a rematch and both guys will still want top dollar.

[tomhawq]

No one cares, not even Spence himself. Otherwise, he'll be on social media screaming "I want the rematch!!"

[dan-b]

No one cares, not even Spence himself. Otherwise, he'll be on social media screaming "I want the rematch!!"

Do you have any insight into what's likely to happen with Crawford's belts? Looks like no mandatory has been called yet.